Irish patients' knowledge and perception of anaesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We read with interest the article by Mannion and Smith \n1 \nabout patientsâ knowledge of the role of anaesthetists in \nIreland. Recent studies across the world have also shown that patients still have a misunderstanding of \nanaesthetistsâ role and qualifications. However interestingly there are exceptions, with 99% of patients in \nSwitzerland acknowledging that anaesthetists were medically qualified \n2 \n, suggesting that patient education in other \ncountries has the potential to be further improved. \nWe recently conducted a survey on 120 adult preoperative patients in the Severn region, with a view to demonstrate a \nsubstantial improvement in the understanding that patients had of the role and responsibilities of anaesthetists. Our \nresults reinforce the results found in Smith and Mannionâ s study that public ignorance still exists, with only 72 % \nof patients believing that anaesthetists were qualified doctors. This shows a very minute increase since the study by \nSwinhoe and Groves (1994), when 65% of participants thought they were qualified \n3 \n, despite the widespread use of the \ninternet and increase in the general public’s interest in medicine over this 19 year period. In agreement with Smith \nand Mannionâ s study, a quarter of patients said they were unsure of any areas that anaesthetists worked outside the \noperating theatre and only 43% knew they worked in intensive care. We asked the participants which individual they \nfelt was most responsible for treatment in an intra-operative emergency. 54% of patients believed this was the role of \nthe surgeon, with only 18% saying the anaesthetist was â the main person in chargeâ . Additionally we asked \nparticipants to estimate the duration of training needed to become a consultant anaesthetist. 64% of patients thought \nit took between five and seven years after completing A-levels. Surprisingly 9% thought it only took two years and \nonly 12% guessed the correct estimate of 14 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".